What’s Wrong with the World

Ehhhh... too polarizing. I prefer candidates who unite, not divide.

(Just kidding. Cool ad.)

The Elephant

It's interesting that the first thing they shred is the Constitution - since Santorum stands for shredding the constitutional rights of non-Christians everywhere!

Government is NOT the answer!

Oh, goody. Since I'm pro-Santorum, maybe I can go out and think of some non-Christians whose constitutional rights I can shred. Let's see, who shall it be today? Think, think, think.

Chucky, you are so shallow and getting so tiresome and troll-like that I've decided either to ignore or to mock your comments.

Don't be a hater. :-)

Seriously - that's an awesome ad and I second everything you wrote in the post below.

In my view the best candidate for this race would be Santorum on social policy, Romney on economic policy, Huntsman on foreign policy, and Gingrich on immigration. A dose of RP in there somewhere to get subsidiarity off the ground. Santorum gets the nod because of the priority of social policy and, for the most part, his positions aren't too far off on the others.

Lydia,

Your endorsement of Santorum means a lot to me -- for various pragmatic reasons I was leading toward Romneybot 3000 but I think you make a good point in the post below that primaries are supposed to be about expressing our preferences toward certain policies as embodied by the candidates and then when the eventual nominee is chosen, we can worry about the practical business of beating Obama.

Anyway, just to add to Santorum's strength on social policy is the way he ties these ideas into tax/economic policy ideas for strengthening the family:

https://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/winning-message_616150.html

I may not agree with every specific, but I like the fact that he is the only candidate thinking seriously about the link between the two (strong morals and economically secure families).

Hey, that's a good article about Santorum, Jeff.

I actually find the low-tech campaign approach quite appealing. It shows he isn't part of the machine. Considering all that the Republican machine has done for him (namely, lose him his Senate seat--thanks, guys), it's nice to see him running on his own now.

Lydia, thanks especially for your remark about patriotism. Hear, hear!

Liberals seem to be allergic to the entire notion of patriotism. So, I pose this challenge to them: is "the country" a suitable object of love and respect, or not? If it is, what kind of actions would show that you love your country?

It grieves me that in virtually every instance we find our country is beleaguered by enemies, some liberals are willing at first instance to make common cause with those enemies. I think that this speaks volumes for whether they love their country. Mayhap there are some liberals who do in fact love this country. I don't wish to cast aspersions on them. However, they should ask themselves why they befriend people who regularly, nay insistently do NOT show any love for the country.

Nope. He has a "plan." I am opposed to the plans of Presidents and Presidential candidates. Washington needs to give up its grand plans, step back, behave according to the law (why should our youth obey the law when even Congressmen and Presidents mock the law incessantly in their words and deeds) and allow the various states of the Union to govern themselves. State leaders need to step up to the plate, be leaders, (and have plans!) and refuse to take federal "handouts" (really cynical instruments of power).

I love the forthright pro-life message though, and it is clearly sincere. Maybe he would do what Reagan failed to do.

"the dignity of every human?"

Santorum would have more credibility if his prolife stance led him to oppose a war every now and then.
Game on? Actually, game over for his brand of leadership; he's done.

Tony, I expect a lack of patriotism from liberals (call me a cynic). From the 1960's on (if not earlier) that's not news. I'm even more concerned by conservatives who worry that patriotism is idolatry and therefore react negatively to an ad like this. My comment was in part directed toward such conservatives. If this is idolatrous use of national symbols and national pride, then any patriotic display is. And at that point, the criticism has obviously gone astray.

Santorum would have more credibility if his prolife stance led him to oppose a war every now and then.

Maybe he should follow Pat Buchanan and oppose WWII retroactively.

Gino, my keyboard is lucky I wasn't sipping anything at the moment I read your comment. Please, this is a place for intelligent discourse. You're free to debate your views, but don't blame me if you get shredded.

The Elephant

I like the ad as well, but it does seem to me that Gino has a fair point, one that stands as a very serious challenge to the Republican party of today. Categorizing another country as the "enemy" of America is perilously easy, and a policy of automatically bombing all such "enemies" to oblivion likely to lead to trouble.

PachyD (The Other Elephant)

Yawn. Boring. No, I'm not going to get into a discussion of just war theory. And there is a difference between war and deliberately, individually killing, you know, little babies in their mothers' wombs or taking apart embryos with surgical precision to harvest them for their cells. This isn't going to become a foreign policy thread, and a discussion of whether this or that war is or would be justified is *not* the same as a discussion of whether Santorum is pro-life. Don't debase the term, please, liberals and paleo-leftists. Thanks. Over and out.

Golly gee, by comparison with either the liberal or the Don Tall fanatic remarks, I think I'd find a negative response by the actual conservative purist targets of this post and the previous one something of an intellectual relief, if an irritant as well.

Whenever people start expressing concerns about the Christian "threat" to "constitutional liberties", we should always drop the euphemisms and be perfectly clear about the "liberties" we are really talking about. Foundational liberties like easy and unfettered access to recreational drugs, abortion, contraception, pornography, no fault divorce and same sex "marriage". You know, the really basic and fundamental "constitutional liberties" that are essential to a good life and yield such rich benefits for society as a whole. If you against these things, clearly you are an evil fascist with no respect for liberty.

Santorum lost his Senate seat because he became one of the most strident and credulous supporters of the Iraq War. He can tout his social conservatism all he wants in the primaries but his interventionism subverts it.

This ad is more effective when viewed in isolation from his entire public record. The American flag is a nice and appropriate touch as long as our nation isn't where his primary loyalty lies. I say this as someone who was once very impressed by Santorum during his first Senate campaign. Too bad this is where he wound up landing.

Untenured:

Whenever people start expressing concerns about the Christian "threat" to "constitutional liberties", we should always drop the euphemisms and be perfectly clear about the "liberties" we are really talking about. Foundational liberties like easy and unfettered access to recreational drugs, abortion, contraception, pornography, no fault divorce and same sex "marriage". You know, the really basic and fundamental "constitutional liberties" that are essential to a good life and yield such rich benefits for society as a whole. If you against these things, clearly you are an evil fascist with no respect for liberty.

You forgot prostitution! Of course it is not just those liberties that are threatened - once you get government involved in an issue - all individual liberties in that area are threatened. Once the government gets involved in sexual issues for instance, everyone potentially becomes subject to the intrusion of some sort of "sexual police state".

Of all the issues you mentioned though, only abortion should be a concern of government in my opinion - since it involves a human individual in the womb. Hmm... If we could only get Congress to pass a law defining the unborn baby as a "person"...

And right on cue: Sex Assault Claim Against 6-Year-Old

An East Bay dad claims a game of tag on the playground resulted in his 6-year-old son being accused of sexual assault – a decision he said was an overreaction by school officials.

"Santorum lost his Senate seat because he became one of the most strident and credulous supporters of the Iraq War."

This is partly true, but his support of Specter over Toomey in the previous GOP primary played a part as well (not that Toomey's any prize, mind you.) Prolife conservatives felt betrayed, while independents and others rejected his jingoism. In short, the Dems in Pa. were able to paint Santorum as a Dubya clone, and it worked.

Lydia, of course there's more room for debate about whether this or that war is justified than about whether it's okay to kill children in the womb, harvest embryos for parts, etc. But eventually there does come a time (wouldn't you agree, at least in theory?) when warmongering can no longer be dismissed as a side issue to being pro-life. If this is not the case, then the New York Times policy of altering "pro-life" to "anti-abortion" is in fact correct. Don't debase the term yourself.

And just to clarify, I'm a staunch social conservative.

Pachyderminator, no, I wouldn't use the term "pro-life" w.r.t. debates over the justification of a particular American war, _ever_, including wars I have opposed. (I have not been a big fan of many of the recently fought wars that America has gone into. Which is not to say I'm a dove, either.)

I have no problem at all with being called "anti-abortion." Bring it on. I wear that badge proudly. Anti-tearing-babies-to-death? For sure. However, we need a larger umbrella term to cover other issues that have to do with the direct, entirely intentional, individual killing of innocent human beings. This includes embryonic stem-cell research, euthanasia, and dehydrating the disabled and elderly to death, to name a few, in addition to abortion. "Pro-life" does very well as that umbrella term. That concept does not include just war theory, debates over particular wars, or debates over collateral damage, whether sufficient diligence was taken to avoid collateral damage, and the like. I would insist on keeping those issues sharply distinct. In this I place myself against even some of my fellow pro-lifers, I suppose.

"Pro-life" does very well as that umbrella term. That concept does not include just war theory, debates over particular wars, or debates over collateral damage, whether sufficient diligence was taken to avoid collateral damage, and the like. I would insist on keeping those issues sharply distinct. In this I place myself against even some of my fellow pro-lifers, I suppose.

You can add to the mix the death penalty for crimes just for completeness. I hope the distinction you are making holds, because if it doesn't the term itself will have been corrupted and what was previously known as the "pro-life" cause or movement will be confused and politicized, and nearly meaningless. I think you could call it a function of the success of the pro-life movement that all manner of other political causes are trying to trade on its perceived rightness. But it is a scorched-earth policy, and of dubious intellectual honesty. "Hey, you're right killing babies is bad, and if you think so you must think X is bad too!" At that point of corruption, "pro-life" only means pro-morally right. A truism. It's breathtaking that such an argument can be made by folks not willing to argue on the merits of individual issues. Maybe we should just have the courage of Christopher Hitchens in his encounter with Bill Maher's audience to call this move the easy charge that anyone can make, and because of this it is made by the simpleminded because they think they can show themselves smarter than politicians who have to make unpopular choices based on the individual merits.

I'm with Lydia too: It would be really churlish for someone like me (who opposed the Iraq war) to go around disputing the pro-life credentials of obviously pro-life politicians and commentators, on the grounds that they supported a war that I did not. Separate issues.

Prolifers can cry foul because we are held to higher standards or embrace it. I accept it as a compliment from a culture desperately seeking an umcompromised moral compass even as it acts otherwise.

It wasn't Santorum's political fortunes alone that rightly suffered, but the entire prolife legislative agenda took a devastating hit when Bush led his country and party over a cliff. That Santorum can, in the course of a single debate, invoke the sanctity of life and seamlessly puff out his chest regarding a pre-emotive strike in Iran like it were a video game would be funny in almost any other context, save this one.

One need not be a pacifist to give sincere prolife witness, but reflexively and incessantly beating the war drums reduces a pol like Santorum to a Gantry-like pose; the town drunk preaching temperance. And, it is others who pay the real price.

One need not be a pacifist to give sincere prolife witness, but reflexively and incessantly beating the war drums reduces a pol like Santorum to a Gantry-like pose; the town drunk preaching temperance. And, it is others who pay the real price.

Elmer Gantry? Really?

And I think you can stop with the knowing smugness about who's paying the price and your diatribe against Santorum. A little history. Bin Laden attacked us thinking we wouldn't respond. Think about that. You lament that we did, but Bin Laden didn't think we would and acted on the assumption that he'd win the ensuing encounter. He saw that a series of Islamic terrorist assaults against U.S. interests over decades had met no meaningful reprisals, and concluded that decadent Westerners would never fight no matter the provocation. Or that if we did, we would withdraw as we had from Mogadishu. Now Mogadishu was a place we shouldn't have been after the humanitarian mission was ended, and instead the military served as UN cops running around arresting people. Did you complain about that? Many Conservatives did, as I did before anything bad happened, but the Libs not so much. Hey it wasn't a war, so what's to worry? And about paying prices, over 3.2 million Americans have lost their lives driving over the last 90 years, more than have died in combat in the entire nation’s 231-year history.

I wouldn't mind the anti-war types so much if they'd just learn something --anything-- about military history to make me think they cared at all, or knew what they were talking about. As VDH has said, history teaches us the folly of believing "the naive faith that with enough money, education, or good intentions we can change the nature of mankind so that conflict, as if by fiat, becomes a thing of the past."

More Americans have been killed in car accidents than wars. O.k., what about non-Americans or does the sanctity of life end at our borders? Meanwhile, you might want to work on a Just Driving Theory so you can build in enough loopholes.

Okay--tweet! (That was my ref. whistle.) Not going to turn into a discussion of just war theory and the justification of the war in Iraq. (Didn't I say that already?)

Yes, but I just demonstrated that it isn't the foul but the response that gets called. Some things never change. :)

I'm calling the response to try to stop more discussion from either side. I just don't want the thread to be taken off on that topic.

I would insist on keeping those issues sharply distinct. In this I place myself against even some of my fellow pro-lifers, I suppose.

But not me. I am on board: they are distinct and should be kept that way. The late Cardinal Bernardin tried to morph them into one issue with the "seamless garment" theory, and damaged a whole generation of speech about the issue.

Cardinal Bernadin proposed a " seamless garment" as a means of reducing the sanctity of life to little more than progressive sentiment. Santorum's form of dissent is equally damaging in that it reduces the sanctity of life to code words with a narrow and hollow meaning.

Catholicism used to shape the personal and public lives of liberals and conservatives in America. Now, it is the political Left and Right that deform Catholicism, making the faith little more than crude partisanship with a pious gauze.

This what America needs - a firm, manly president who won't back down. One who will tell other countries to get in line, one who will tell the liberal intelligentsia to move over. Yes, restore our God-fearing convictions future President.

This is the greatest country ever. I wish the knuckleheads in charge and the sweeties in the liberal brain-washed camp would get that through their damned skulls.